The Michael Moore film "Bowling for Columbine" showed various scenes from the past to bring awareness to a problem. Although this film was released in 2002, there is no doubt, that the issue he brought before us still applies. Over a decade after Moore attempted to bring awareness to the issue, the issue has only become worse.
The film focused on three major tragedies that had occurred before the movie. Columbine, Buelle, and the Oklahoma City tragedy were the three main events that Moore dealt with in the film. All of these events brought great attention from the media as these events proved to be the firsts in a line of many more to come. Moore attacked this issue early looking back at the string of events. After the three events he talked about, it would become more and more common. In the country today we have come to expect tragedies like these almost once a month, if not more often. In a sense I feel Moore was a little ahead of his time in terms of attacking this issue. I wonder how much more popular this movie would have been had it been released recently. I believe a majority of the people at the time of the movie release thought these were just fluke events that would not continue. This, unfortunately, is not the truth, as the tragedies have accumulated exponentially since the movie's release. I did admire what Moore did at the end of the movie by seeking out several kids from the Columbine incident and bringing them to the K-Mart headquarters. I think this might have been a symbol for the fact that if the people really felt like there needed to be change, that the people could do so.
I believe "Bowling for Columbine" was an informatory film with an obvious political pull. Although this pull might turn some people off, the issue Moore brings before people is an issue that truly needs to be resolved.
I thought this was a great post, Chad! The last paragraph really got to me. The talk about the obvious political pull turning people off is definitely true. I don't think it should matter, though. There were strong, valid points throughout the movie that you cannot argue with whether you're a right or a left. There are stone cold facts that America has the most gun violence in the world. This is a fact that nobody should be proud of, and nobody's ignorance should elude. I would hope that his political pull wouldn't turn people away, definitely since the film had so much for us to learn from. I agree with you, if this film was produced today, it may have even more rave.
ReplyDeleteI had never really thought about the political pull this film has, but now that you mention it, you are absolutely right. There is a huge divide in this country between those who want total freedom to own guns and those who want stricter gun control laws. Though both may seem extreme to the other, something obviously needs to be done in regards to guns, because what we are doing is clearly not working. Just a few years ago we had the Newtown school shooting where dozens of elementary school children died. If that didn't alert and convince people that we need stricter gun laws, I don't know what will. In my opinion, everyone is stuck in their ways on the gun control issue, and we need to find a way to compromise.
ReplyDeleteI think that, had this movie been released more recently, it would've been much more controversial than it probably was at the time. Like you said, people still thought these were just fluke events at the time, so they probably didn't give much thought to it. However, as the gun violence has continued to escalate, so too has the debate over gun control. People are firmly on one side or the other, and nobody is willing to budge. Those who want to have no laws on gun control would be outraged at this film, since it depicts them as insensitive and not willing to even acknowledge that guns can be bad. I'm not saying that this is a correct depiction, but it certainly says something when the NRA holds a gun rally in Columbine so soon after the massacre. People who refuse to acknowledge this as an issue need to rethink and reevaluate--the last few years have seen it so clearly be a problem that it can no longer be ignored.
It really is interesting to consider difference in reaction that might have occurred had this movie been released later. I agree that there probably would have been even more of a shock. Also sadly, Moore would have many more examples of violence to use, and the statistics now are even worse. From what I've seen this issue hasn't improved at all, and if it has, not enough.
ReplyDeleteI think Moore released this movie in 2002 because he wanted to bring the focus of violence back home after 9/11. I agree that Moore used Columbine, Buelle, and the Oklahoma City as examples of when there was a lot of attention from the media, but I believe that he used these three events because they all represented different ways guns were used. Columbine had teenagers using guns intentionally, which shocked many people because it happened in an average town. Buelle had a young clueless child using a gun to unknowingly kill a classmate. This hit gun possessing adults who have young children to rethink their safety. Oklahoma City didn't use guns at all, but rather bombs. The culprits of the bombing however were found to be gun owners. So we have teenagers using guns, children using guns and gun owners blowing people up. This pretty much shows that no one age group is culpable for gun violence.
ReplyDelete